Plans to spend more than $5 million to lure visitors to San Diego for the critical summer season have been put on hold because of a delay in funding needed to finance the advertising campaign.

San Diego's Tourism Authority had expected to launch its spring/summer ad campaign next month, using catchy jingles and alluring video of the county's beaches and tourist attractions to woo vacationers from Phoenix, Los Angeles, Seattle, Salt Lake City and San Francisco.

Those plans to start placing millions of dollars in TV ads for February, March and April have been canceled for now because because of a bureaucratic glitch that prohibits the release of tax revenues for what is known as the city's Tourism Marketing District.

The net effect is the delay could put San Diego at a competitive disadvantage for the all-important summer season when cities across the country are working hard to grab a share of vacationers' discretionary dollars.

"Less advertising in Los Angeles and Phoenix may not have an impact because they know us well, so I’d be more concerned about the markets we’re starting to develop, like Seattle and San Francisco," said Joe Terzi, who heads the Tourism Authority.

"Most of our competitors are advertising in the same markets during this time to attract the same people to come to their destinations, because that’s when people are considering buying travel."

For the last five years, tourism promotion has been funded via the special assessment district that derives its revenue through a surcharge on hotel guests' room bills. That district came to an end Dec. 31 but a new, similar district was formed and authorized late last year by the City Council for 39-1/2 more years.

Beginning Jan. 1, most hotels in the city began levying a 2 percent surcharge over and above San Diego's 10.5 percent room tax to finance tourism activities. Trouble is, the transition from the old district to the new one has proved rockier than anticipated.

Monies needed to finance promotion during the second half of the fiscal year cannot be released until the new district's budget is approved by the City Council. And the council cannot act until a contractual agreement to run the district is signed by the city's new mayor, Bob Filner.

And therein lies the problem. In a meeting this week to brief Filner on the district, hotel and tourism representatives stressed to him the urgency of signing the contract so that operation of the tourism district can move forward. Filner, however, told the group he had only received the contract in the last few days and had not had time to thoroughly review it, according to the district's executive director, Lorin Stewart, who was present at the meeting.

It is still unclear, Stewart said, why there has been a delay in processing the contract through the various city departments and the mayor's office.

"He did not say he would not sign the agreement," Stewart said. "Our attorney was very clear we needed the signed agreement to go forward to get part two of our fiscal year approved by the council, and we can’t disburse any money until the council approves the budget.

"We wanted to know if it was a deliberate delay or accidental, and we all felt that he really had just seen it."

Filner did not respond to repeated requests this week for a comment.

Council President Todd Gloria acknowledged the loss to the city should the ad campaign not go forward.

“The Tourism Marketing District has been beneficial to our City and to our region by attracting visitors and their spending, Gloria said. "If they are unable to market San Diego, the City Council would of course be concerned about the negative impacts."

It is still possible the Tourism Authority can manage an abbreviated advertising promotion should the funding materialize within the next month, Terzi said. The bureau's share of the $5.4 million campaign, which is done in conjunction with SeaWorld, is close to $4 million. There remains the possibility that the theme park could advance the agency some money until the funding delay is resolved, he added.

Looming as a larger threat to the future of the tourism district are two lawsuits filed late last year challenging the legality of the hotel levy approved by the city's hotel owners. The suits, filed by local activist Mel Shapiro and San Diegans for Open Government, maintain that the hotel levy is illegal because it wasn't approved by the voters, which they say is required under Proposition 26, a statewide ballot initiative approved in 2010.

John Lambeth, an attorney hired by the city to advise it on the district, has said previously that the plan for the tourism district was narrowly crafted to make sure it would fall within the exceptions included in the proposition, which further limits the ability of local governments to impose fees and charges without two-thirds voter approval. That meant devising a plan where all San Diego lodging properties must contribute to the district’s revenue.

The current 2 percent levy applies to hotels of 30 rooms or more, and a tax of 0.55 percent affects all those properties with 29 rooms or less, including seasonal rentals.